Rarely is the term "global governance" heard on the evening
news. When it does appear, the term "conspiracy theory" is usually
in the context. While America is watching the political circus, the international
community is bringing together all the elements of global governance in
preparation for the big event scheduled for September. A full calendar
of events (which can be found at http://www.un.org/millennium/2000cal.htm)
has been prepared.

Americans don't care what the United Nations is doing, in the belief
that nothing the U.N. does can affect us anyway. This may have been true
in the past. No more. The magnitude of societal change that is underway
is almost beyond comprehension. These changes are already affecting individual
Americans, but rarely is the impact recognized as the result of U.N. influence.

We are already deeply into the era of global governance. It is a process
that began many years ago. The events scheduled for this year, culminating
in the September World Summit, will put in place all the international
mechanisms necessary to insure that there is no turning back.

It is important to realize that global governance will not be imposed
suddenly, upon adjournment of the World Summit. After the Summit, implementation
of global governance will accelerate, but it will still take several years
to fully transfer sovereignty from nation states to a central global command.

International law will be the supreme law of the planet. Individual nations
will be required to conform their laws to international norms. For those
who say "never in America," wake up and smell the roses. The
World Trade Organization (WTO) already has the power to require conformance
of national law to WTO policy. And it has the power to impose financial
penalties upon those nations which fail to do so in a timely manner.

The U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, though not fully negotiated, will have similar
power to set strict, legally enforceable limits on the use of fossil fuel
in America.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, even though it was not ratified
by the U.S. Senate, is being implemented under the guise of the President's
"Land Legacy" initiative. The published goal of the treaty is
to return "at least 50 percent" of the total land area to wilderness,
and manage most of the rest of the land for conservation objectives.

We are seeing global governance at work when policies that originate
with the U.N. are implemented in America, despite the absence of Senate
ratification, Congressional authorization, or even the awareness of local
elected officials. The rash of national monument designations, and the
"Roadless" initiative, which closes access to public lands,
has the effect of converting land to wilderness - precisely as prescribed
by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

We are moving to a system of global governance in which national governments
are transformed into administrative units to implement U.N. policies.
State governments are being transformed into administrative units to implement
national policy, and local governments are being transformed into administrative
units to implement state policies.

This transformation has accelerated dramatically under the Clinton/Gore
administration, which is one of the strongest proponents of global governance
in the international community. International policies that affect land
use and energy are most visible. Less visible, are the international policies
that affect education, technology development, the flow of information,
transportation, and security.

Other recommendations, such as the elimination of the veto and permanent
member status in the Security Council; a standing world army; the authority
to impose global taxation; and dozens of others, are being systematically
implemented throughout the United Nations system. The consequences of
this shift to global governance are incomprehensible to those who have
not followed its progress. The society resulting from this transformation,
though called "democratic," is socialist. Under the published
vision of global governance, policy decisions are made by non-elected,
carefully selected individuals. All sources and means of production are
controlled by the central authority. The flow of information, too, is
to be regulated by the central authority, as well as the educational curriculum.
Enforcement of policy decisions will be at the hands of the International
Criminal Court, and the U.N. standing army. And there will be no hope
of rebellion.

Central to the objective of global governance is control by the U.N.
of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all firearms.
Possession of a fire arm will be legal only when licensed by the United
Nations. The recent call by the President to license all gun owners in
America fits quite nicely into the United Nations' plan.

The painful reality is that many Americans see nothing wrong with global
governance. The United Nations Association in America boasts hundreds
of thousands of members who lobby their elected officials to allow international
policies to be implemented.

Non-government organizations (NGOs) such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon
Society, claim millions of members who actively support this transformation.
School children, even the boy scouts, have been taught that global governance
is the answer to the world's problems. Those who challenge the globalist
vision are immediately labeled as "right-wing extremists."

The treaties, agreements, and other documents required to bring about
global governance have all been prepared, and many are being implemented.
When the World Summit convenes in September, there is little doubt that
the body will adopt the concept and usher in the era of global governance
officially.

The only way to avoid this tidal wave of global socialism, is the withdrawal
of the United States from the United Nations. Should we fail to withdraw,
and continue to yield our sovereignty to this international body, it will,
in relatively short order, drain our economic capacity to the point that
we will no longer be able to chart our own course. The coming election
may be the last opportunity we have to send people to Washington who value
our sovereignty, or our freedom.